1. The danger is that you’ll never believe your old interpretations after viewing this show. In my main show I compare 32 in-lines before and after noise removal. (this show is abbrevated.) You will see a complete change in structure, as well as an exquisite display of stratigraphy never seen before. The data comes from some old stuff I must have forgotten to destroy. It was used to prove my inversion / integration logic. Back then I saw the noise but had not developed my present tools, and had to depend on a very deep mute to avoid the worst. (Abbreviated for the internet.) The reason for the extended show was that I wanted to prove to myself that my technique was solid over a large set of data. However the reason I’ve highlighted it here is because of the rather monumental change it makes in interpretation. If seeing is believing, the more you see is good, but I have to settle for what people will wait for, so I cut out a lot of fairly repetitive before and after pairs. If you would like to see the original, let me know. At the bottom of each results screen you will find this red arrow. By clicking on it you will see the regular stack without noise removal. The noise liftoff is the only difference in the two runs. Once there, you will see the blue arrow that will return you to the main flow. I do not believe this type of noise is at all unusual. You will see a drastic change in structure. Removing the noise brings out a much stronger overall dip, as well as greatly enhanced resolution. This evedence says the noise is surface oriented, which makes a lot of sense. The change is so great I expect many to question the believability of the process. However, keep in mind that the only difference between the two runs is “noise liftoff” and it is not logical of the disbeliever to think I could have manufactured what has been uncovered.

2. Note the dip And please do a “2 finger” toggling from here on out.

3. The noise dip is much flatter, (because of near surfac orientation). It is also lower in frequency (suggesting shear wave energy). Other than that, it stacks quite well, and people have been mapping it for years.

4. Let the arrows guide “finger toggling”. They keep you on the same line.

6. Just proving there are two distinctly different sets of energy that compete with each other should open the eyes of people trying to do too much with the data..

8. Even though I know it is true I myself find it hard to believe.

10. I see strong evidnce of faulting, but the breaks have been badly mulled by the use of migration before stack.

12. Note the difference in dominant frequency between the two sets – We’ve now moved about one hundred inlines.

14. We’re now 300 inlines in, and still we see the same quality.

16. Click on circle to repeat series. Or here to return to symposium router.